MSN vs. MAPS

wonderdog writes: "I don't remember seeing this here before... but MAPS has added a bunch of MSN's mail servers to their list. Catch the story at internetnews.com. It was brought to my attention by an MSN user who called us to complain that we were rejecting his mail."

Good!

[Lazarus Short]

This is a good thing, and not just because we all enjoy bashing Microsoft. (Not that there's anything wrong with bashing Microsoft ;)

Why is this good? It's because, just like the Usenet Death Penalty [stopspam.org], if MAPS takes on one of the "big boys", and wins (by forcing them to back down), it will be a great stride forward in the public's perception of MAPS as a legitimate system. MAPS needs public recognition, and standing firm on a legitimate dispute with a major player is just the way to get it.

--

Let them complain.

[luckykaa]

If people complain to MAPS, then MAPS will explain the situation. If the person with the problem doesn't like it, then there's not a lot they can do. They have no bargaining power. I think MAPS are fairly immune to flames. They do have bargaining power against MSN. They can change their service provider. If MAPS means MSN can give no service then they will.

Re:Good!

[rlkoppenhaver]

You're assuming that they'll win. IMO, that's not necessarily a given. As the so-called "big boys" go, Microsoft is one of the biggest and best known. And despite how much the /. crowd loves to hate them, MS still has a very good reputation with the average consumer. This situation has just as much potential to crush MAPS as it does to boost them.

UDP vs MAPS/ORB

[Masem]

While both the Usenet death penalty and MAPS, ORBs and other blacklists are attempting the same goal (the securing and improving news or mail services), the two different approaches seem to have quite different results. A UDP rarely has gone unmet by the ISP in question, while the MAPS lists continue to grow larger. One might say that UDPs succeed because it takes a diverse group of people to actually initiate the UDP, so if a UDP is placed, that means multiple people that are in the know have seen something wrong. On the other hand, getting on MAPS seems to require a lot less; a user anywhere needs to complain, and there needs to be verification by the MAPS organization -- this would not be a diverse group, so one may consider MAPS to be biased and ignore being on that list.

Of course, you have to consider how news and mail protocols differ; it's tons easier to get a UDP in full effect with only needed a small number of servers to send cancel messages, while you'd have to get every mail server in the world to use MAPS to achieve the same thing. Also, many ISPs tend to see news as extra, email being essectial, so if the news server is UDP'd, no big loss, but they will fight to make sure they aren't put on MAPS.

If MAPS was more like a small body of mail server operators from various organizations, including larger ISPs, then I think such events as being put on MAPS would be taken more seriously. I suspect that MSN will ingore this, thinking only the tiny fraction of linux users out there will even remotely be interested in MAPS.

It's already happened!

[Psi-kick Guy]

This isn't the first time that MAPS has gone up against MS.

About two years ago, MS had a bunch of open relays, and got placed on the RBL. MS postured, and posed, sent threatening letters... and then backed down!

It's already happened.

*Snicker*

[NeuroManson]

Well, I for one was forced to killfile MSN mail a short while back, since I slipped up once and forgot to nospam my e-mail addy... Anyway, either through that, or Convergence:Technology's mistake of letting their e-mail database get on the net, someone harvested my addy, and promptly started spamming me from an AOL source through MSN...

Always the same idiotic message "Accept Credit Cards! Ask Me How! 568s" subject line... Invalid return addresses and whatnot, so apparently someone is using one of the general spammer toys used to regularly spam newsgroups...;P

Let's not forget who controls what.

[mindstrm]

As I have my own mail servers, who is anyone else to tell ME that I cannot use maps or anything like it? That choice is 100% up to me.

Yes, there may be problems.. but the fact remains: each individual network administrator who decides to use this service has the right to make that choice. They understand the consequences, and can also STOP using it at any time if they feel it is negatively impacting their service.

And I, for one, feel that spam is SO rude, that I don't need to do business with those who allow spammers.

seriously

[mindstrm]

MSN tech support telling customers to talk to maps if they have a problem? WOw. How arrogant.

The issue should be simple: If an ISP is not accepting your email to one of it's users, inform the user, and have them inform the ISP. As the ISP's customer, only they can affect what the ISP does with regards to maps.
An ISP's choice to use maps or not should be directly related to whether it's users wish to have the service.

Re:seriously

[grahamm]

Or the other way round. You (the sender) should complain that email you (not a spammer) are sending are being blocked because of the actions of your ISP. If the ISP does not take steps to get themselves removed from MAPS, ORBS etc then you can always show you dis-appreciation by taking your business (and subscription charges) elsewhere.

Re:Good!

[Col. Klink (retired)]

It's gonna be awfully hard for MS to convince a judge that they think the RBL is a violation of their corporate rights when, in fact, MS is a MAPS subsriber.